Fake Currency Indian Notes: Home Ministry for better coordination among Ministries;

Govt says 8 lakh claims received for allocation of land under Forest Rights Act;

Stage set for ouster of Musharraf; National Assembly to meet on Monday;

India, ASEAN resolve issues to conclude FTA;

education story.pdf

Higher education: PMO reviews implementation of PM's initiatives; Education Loan Interest Subsidy Scheme being polished;

mbuzz862.pdf

India, ASEAN resolve issues for Free Trade Agreement;

mbuzz861.pdf

Amir Khan to be brand ambassador for Tourism promotion campaign;

mbuzz860.pdf

V V Giri Memorial Award goes to Prof K P Kannan ;

2008-TIOL-360-ITAT-MAD.pdf + icici story.pdf

ICICI Bank Ltd Vs JCIT, Chennai (Dated: June 22, 2007)

Income tax – Proceedings initiated by CIT (A) by assuming jurisdiction under s.263 – AO's second denovo order quashed in its entirety and remanded back for reconsideration – CIT (A) also raised other issues in addition to lease transactions

Held – CIT (A) can assume jurisdiction under s.263 when AO disregards remand order to frame the entire assessment denovo – Depreciation allowed by AO for six lease transactions cannot be disregarded by CIT (A) when AO adopts similar methodology for verifying depreciation claims in fourteen lease transactions - CIT (A) Order on this account quashed – CIT's remand order to AO to look into other issues upheld as every assessment year is a fresh cause of action – Principle of res judicata does not apply in income tax proceedings:CHENNAI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-359-ITAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Virtual Software & Training Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, New Delhi (Dated : April 4, 2008 )

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)- ITAT restoring quantum proceedings back to AO for computation of capital gains – Held, in the light of order of the ITAT the penalty order cannot stand. In view of ITAT order the A.O. has to pass a fresh assessment order on computing the total income. At that time, he can initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act if so warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. As on today earlier penalty order has no legs to stand and is not enforceable :DELHI ITAT ;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1278-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + registry story.pdf

M/s Shiv Bharath Industries Vs CCE, Mumbai-II ( Dated: June 30, 2008 )

Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution – Notices for hearing were sent at the address which is the address of the CCE, Mumbai-II – no fault of applicant in not attending hearing – ROA allowed and order recalled: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1274-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + Ajay story.pdf

M/s Arjay Apparel Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Coimbatore ( Dated: July 4, 2008 )

CENVAT credit can be utilized to pay arrears of duty; there is a bar for using Cenvat credit for payment of duty due for removal of goods in a month using the credit earned in the subsequent months. However, there is no prohibition in the assessee paying the short paid/ unpaid/ defaulted amount using the CENVAT credit. In the instant case, the assessee had paid the duty due in September for two clearances in August. The delay in payment of the duty not paid was only a few days for which there is no demand. There was no need to pay the amount from PLA as argued by the Consultant for the appellants. Therefore, the interest payment was also not required to be made. Interest paid has to be refunded.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1272-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Ravi Cotsyn Ltd Vs CCE, Ludhiana ( Dated: June 25, 2008 )

Central Excise – clandestine removal of inputs and finished goods – no retraction of the statement admitting the clandestine removal – unauthenticated RG 23 produced at a distant date is not acceptable – demand of duty upheld - however, penalty reduced:DELHI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1277-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Chambal Motors Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur ( Dated: July 10, 2008 )

ST - Business Auxiliary Service - Assessee provide BAS to banks and receive commission and banks pass on a part of commission to customers - Revenue demands tax on gross amount - Deposit made by the assessee is sufficient - Pre-deposit waived off : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1271-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Green Garden Services Vs CCE & CC, Nashik ( Dated: May 9, 2008 )

ST - Penalty u/s 76 - Commissioner(A) enhances penalty as the original authority provides no ground for invokign Sec 80 - Since the assessee fails to give genuine reasons, waiver of pre-deposit not granted : MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2008-TIOL-1276-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Salico Electronics Vs CC, Mumbai ( Dated: June 20, 2008 )

Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution – Appellant had sent e-mail seeking adjournment which was not put up before the Bench by the Registry –Tribunal allows ROA as applicant have reasonably explained that they are interested in pursuing their appeal : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Sandvik Asia Ltd Vs CC, Chennai ( Dated: May 2, 2008 )

Customs – claim for refund of duty without challenging the assessment order is not maintainable. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1273-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Super Tannery Ltd Vs CCE, Kanpur ( Dated: June 23, 2008 )

Customs – export under DEEC / duty drawback – the goods exported are half boots but not long leather boots as clarified by the DGFT – no infirmity in the finalization of the assessments :CHENNAI CESTAT;